1 / 16

Maria Margarida Castro Neves Fraunhofer IGD, Germany Margarida.Castro-Neves@igd.fraunhofer.de

Testing and Certification of Biometric Components and System in Europe a report on the intermediate findings of the BioTesting Europe Project. Maria Margarida Castro Neves Fraunhofer IGD, Germany Margarida.Castro-Neves@igd.fraunhofer.de. Agenda. About the “BioTesting Europe” project

garan
Download Presentation

Maria Margarida Castro Neves Fraunhofer IGD, Germany Margarida.Castro-Neves@igd.fraunhofer.de

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Testing and Certification of Biometric Components and System in Europe a report on the intermediate findings of the BioTesting Europe Project Maria Margarida Castro NevesFraunhofer IGD, Germany Margarida.Castro-Neves@igd.fraunhofer.de

  2. Agenda • About the “BioTesting Europe” project • Identified EU needs for testing in biometrics • Issues & Gaps in testing capabilities • Improving EU capabilities for assuring performance

  3. BioTesting Europe • Project details • 9 month project: finishing by Dec 2007 • Supporting Activity under “Preparatory Actions for Security Research” • Partners: • European Biometrics Forum (coordinator) • National Physical Laboratory (UK) • Fraunhofer IGD (Germany) • EC/JRC Ispra (Italy) • Objectives • Consult to determine EU’s needs for testing of biometrics (Inventory) • Identify where improved testing capabilities required (Gap Analysis) • Prepare work plan/roadmap of coordinated actions to further develop biometrics testing and certification capabilities • Define the ‘business case’ for testing

  4. European Approach • This is why national governments / authorities should support a European approach for testing certificates: • The vendors would not survive to pay for 27 national tests/certificates • Not-testing (before installing) would undermine the EU-widesecurity policy for the border control process • We need to provide a comparable security at all border control points along the EU perimeter • Vice-Versa recognition works (well) forCC-certification. It should work alsofor Biometric Performance certification!

  5. Stakeholders consulted Suppliers Vendors System Integrators Operators end customer Test organisations Independent 3rd party labs In-house test labs Certification authorities Academics Applications considered (Criteria: relevance and urgency) Passports AFIS Visas (VIS BMS) Identity documents Registered traveller Potential Scope: Systems Sub-systems Devices Processes Personnel (training & education) Project scope

  6. Questions to be answered What testing is needed? Which components should be certified? Who should perform these tests? What standards are applicable? What do we already have & what needs to be developed ? What R&D is needed? What are the costs and who will pay/invest? Inventory based on 38 Questionnaires

  7. Example: e-borders • What needs testing for e-Passports and border control e-Gates? • Qualities of enrolment • Procedures • Operating environment • Interoperability • Efficiency at the border • Throughput • Accuracy • Accessibility • Usability • Consistency of processes

  8. Testing needed / Tests conducted

  9. Observations • Testing is carried out by Suppliers, Operators, and Test Organisations • Mostly by suppliers & operators • Most current test needs are being addressed • By ad-hoc means rather than using standard schema / references • 3rd party tests & certification will be complementaryto suppliers’ and operators’ tests • Suppliers will test during development & production • Operators need to test on their own data • “Helps us understand our system” • Standard tests & certification must meet real needs • Certify against applicable levels of performance, test scenario, etc. • Must be a return on investment in carrying out the tests

  10. Observations / Gaps • Fragmented approach to testing • Few common requirements identified • Disconnect between component-level tests & system-level tests • Component-level performance not predictive of system-level performance • No methodologies / standards for some key areas of testing • Usability/Accessibility (of particular EU interest) • Level-3 conformance to data format standards • i.e. is the record an accurate representation of the characteristic • … • Biometrics not a mature technology – still many unknowns about performance • E.g. long-term performance of face, fingerprint, iris • Ageing of face compared to photo image over lifetime of passport • Performance expectations fingerprinting children (age limits)

  11. Observations / Gaps • Usability and Accessibility • Diverse concepts for Human-Computer-Interface (HCI) among vendors, creating confusion for data subjects • Standardization of usability related issues is not progressed far: ISO 24779 (Icons & Symbols) is in early Working Draft status • R&D: How can we separate out usability impacts on biometric performance? • Need for test data • Determining high accuracy requires a lot of data • Data protection legislation often prevents sharing/saving data • Release of any data may compromise its use in testing • Possible Technical Solutions: • Possibility to consider synthetic data? • If the test data can not travel to the System-Under-Test could the system travel to the data?

  12. Organisational structures (under consideration) • Do we need a network of test organisations? • European – International? • Which existing institution can take the role of an accreditation body? • Criteria for including a test laboratory in such a network? • Which type of labs are accepted: • Governmental lab / Independent lab • Consultant / integrators lab • Industry lab • No closed group - transparent conditions needed • What are the criteria that a lab drops out of the network

  13. Organisational structures (under consideration) • As resources are limited - where should the focus of testing be? • Biometric Performance testing • Protocol testing (according to SC17.3 work) • Security testing along Common Criteria … • What role for “Qualified product lists” / “certification”? • Some performance aspects better suited to certification than others • Conformance to standard • Interoperability • FAR/FRR – too dependent on target population/environment • Scope of certificate • Application specific? • Duration?

  14. Conclusions • BioTesting project underway • Project finishes soon, but comments/opinions welcomed • Testing of usability issues is becoming urgent to achieve desired levels of performance & interoperability • Focus of test and certification seems certain to change as industry matures

  15. Further information • Contact points • max.snijder@eubiometricsforum.com • +31 624 603809 (direct) • +353 1 488 5810 (secretariat) • tony.mansfield@npl.co.uk • +44 20 8943 7029 • christoph.busch@igd.fraunhofer.de • +49 6151 155 536 • margarida.castro-neves@igd.fraunhofer.de • +49 6151 155 535 • Website • www.biotestingeurope.eu

More Related